Divisional Signal and Telecommunication Engineer (Constn) II, South Central Railway and Another vs Mohd. Jaffer and Another

Ramesh Ranganathan, J.—In this batch of writ petitions, the order of the Labour Court, Hyderabad, in proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is under challenge. Since in most of these cases, despite service of notice, no Counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the workmen, it would suffice if the facts as stated in WP No. 7140 of 1999, wherein the 1st respondent-workman is represented through Counsel, are taken note of.

WP No. 7140 of 1999 has been filed by the South Central Railway, Secunderabad aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, Hyderabad, in CMP No. 1 of 1984 dated 13.3.1992. The 1st respondent-workman filed CMP No. 1 of 1984, u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act"), before the Labour Court. In his petition filed before the Labour Court, the workman contended that he was appointed as a Casual Labour under the respondents therein on daily rate basis on 2.1.1967, that he was engaged as a Kalasi continuously without any break from the date of initial appointment and was paid Rs. 2/- per day. The workman placed reliance on Chapter XXV and Clause 2501 of the Railway Establishment Manual, (hereinafter referred to as "the Manual"), whereunder a Casual Labour who is engaged for more than six months without break is required to be treated as temporary after the expiry of six months of continuous employment. Clause 2511 of the Manual provides that a Casual Labourer, after completing six months of continuous service, is entitled for the privileges admissible to the temporary employees as laid down in Chapter XXIII of the Manual. The workman placed reliance on Clause 2303 whereunder a Casual Labour is entitled to the scales of pay and allowances as admissible to permanent railway servants of corresponding status. The workman contended that he had continuously worked right from the date of his initial engagement on 2.1.1967, that he had completed six months service on 2.7.1967, the date from which he was entitled to the scales of pay, that he worked as a Casual Labourer upto 8.8.1974, that the respondents-petitioners herein had issued a service card which contained the particulars of employment, that the workman was entitled for the difference of daily wages and the scales of pay from 2.7.1967 to 8.8.1974, that the total emoluments in the scale of pay of Rs. 70-85 would be Rs. 180/- per month, whereas he was paid only Rs. 60/- per month and hence he was entitled to the difference of Rs. 120/-per month, from 2.7.1967 till 8.8.1974, totaling to Rs. 10,214/-.

In their counter, before the Labour Court, the petitioners herein contended that the petition u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act was not maintainable since the relief sought for was not based on any right vested in the workman under any agreement or an award, that it was outside the scope of Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, that the claim made during the period from 1974 was belated and stale, that the 1st respondent herein was not a workman, that no ascertained sum of money was payable to the workman, that, on the very allegations made by the workman, there was a dispute regarding his right to claim arrears, that the claim was not mere computation of monetary benefits, that the question of fixation of scales of pay, and the attendant benefits to be ordered thereupon, were matters not within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, that the difference, if allowed, would not be the computation of amount but determination of the workman''s right to claim the said wages and that such a computation was not within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court u/s 33C(2) of the Act. The petitioners herein also contended that the claim of the workman was belated and stale, that the workman had claimed to have acquired temporary status on account of having worked for the requisite period of ten years earlier, that he had come up with a claim after a long lapse of time and that the Railway Administration was unable to produce the records due to efflux of time, that the relevant records were destroyed in accordance with the statutory provisions and as such the workman was put to strict proof of his allegations.

The petitioners herein further stated, in their counter before the Labour Court, that in W.A. No. 672 of 1981 and batch, filed by the Railway Administration against the order of the Labour Court in similar matters, a Division Bench of the High Court had allowed the writ appeals setting aside the orders of the Labour Court observing that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and that the petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground. Without prejudice to these contentions, the petitioners herein contended that the workman was engaged in a Construction Unit and was a Project Labourer, that according to the Tribunal''s recommendation Project Labour were entitled to 1/30th of monthly rate of pay plus Dearness Allowance after completion of 180 days continuous service and, accordingly, the workman was paid 1/30th of the monthly rate wages from the date he completed six months till he was absorbed as a regular employee basing on the total service rendered by him, that there was no rule that the workman was entitled to temporary status on monthly scales of pay, that Paragraph 2511 of the Manual applied to the Casual Labour engaged on works other than projects and had no relevance to the case of the workman. The petitioners herein also disputed the statement of computation. They relied on Paragraph 121 of the Indian Railway Accounts Code which stipulated the period of preservation of records and stated that the relevant records were not available. They contended that the workman was not entitled to temporary status and, therefore, the question of consequential benefits such as arrears of pay did not arise. They also denied the liability to pay the amount claimed by the workman. In the course of the examination of the 1st respondent-workman, a suggestion was put to him that he had made a false claim knowing fully well that the records pertaining to the above period were destroyed by the petitioners herein.

Curiously, none of these contentions had been taken note of by the Labour Court in passing the impugned order. A few of the averments in the counter were perfunctorily referred to. The Labour Court, without even recording the contention of the petitioners herein that the records had already been destroyed, adjudicated on merits examined the scope of Paragraphs 2501 and 2511 of Chapter XXV of the Manual and, thereafter, held that, from the evidence WW.1, it was clear that the workman had worked for more than six months, that he had also filed Ex.W1 and that there was no contra evidence to disbelieve the claim of the workman. The Labour Court also held that there was no contra evidence to dispute the quantum claimed by the workman and, accordingly, the amount claimed in the petition was directed to be paid.

It is well settled that a proceeding u/s 33C(2) of the Act is in the nature of an execution proceeding where the Labour Court calculates the amount of money due to a workman from his employer, or if the workman is entitled to any benefit which is capable of being computed in terms of money, the labour Court proceeds to compute the claim in terms of money. The calculation or computation follows upon an existing right to the money or benefit, in view of its being adjudicated, or otherwise duly provided for. An investigation directed towards the determination of the workman''s right to the relief, and the corresponding liability of the employer, including whether the employer was, at all, liable or not are beyond the scope of an enquiry u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. When a claim is made before the Labour Court u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court has first to determine whether the workman has any accrued or vested right flowing from an award, settlement or statute and it is only the computation of a benefit, which has already accrued in favour of the workman, which is permissible in proceedings u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. A right to the money, or the benefit which is sought to be executed u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, must be an existing one which has already been adjudicated upon and must arise in the course of, and in relation to, the relationship between the workman and his employer. It is only when the entitlement has been earlier adjudicated or recognized by the employer, and thereafter, for the purpose of implementation thereof some ambiguity requires interpretation that the power oft interpretation is treated as incidental to the Labour Court''s power u/s 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, like that of the executing Court''s power to interpret the decree for the purpose of its execution. ( Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited Vs. The Workmen and Another, , State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Brijpal Singh, and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shri Birendra Bhandari, ).

In the cases on hand, the Labour Court had taken upon itself the task of interpreting Paragraphs 2501 and 2511 of Chapter XXV of the Manual and had also adjudicated the question whether the workmen had satisfied the requirements of the conditions stipulated in the aforementioned clauses. The Labour Court has ignored the specific plea of the petitioners herein in their counter that the entire records were destroyed and that the claims filed by the workmen were belated as the same were filed after more than 10 years. The Labour Court has also failed to even take note of the specific averment that an identical issue had already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court.

Viewed from any angle, the orders of the Labour Court, impugned in these writ petitions, cannot be sustained. The Labour Court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction in adjudicating the claims of the workmen. The impugned orders are, therefore, liable to be quashed. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.